question on "Longshanks" as depicted in "Braveheart"
Joseph B. Comstock
jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
> did Longshanks truly send his son's wife to negotiate with Wallace ?
> i would have thought that women wouldn't have been relied on for
> what might have been considered a "man's" duty - noegotiating with
> an enemy
> was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
> film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
> out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
I've never heard that the queen met with Wallace, nor that Edward
threw his son's advisor out the window (and tend to doubt both
episodes), but this may be an accurate portrayal of the queen's
abilities and of the attitudes to Edward II's advisors. The queen and
her lover later conspire to have her husband overthrown and executed,
and certainly after Edward I died, the nobility executed two of Edward
II's favorites, at different times. These favorites are portrayed as
lovers in the "Lives" of Edward, although this could have been rumor.
He was executed by being impaled on a hot poker, through his... A just
punishment, they felt.
As for the portrayal of Edward II... None of the accounts I have seen
portray him as efeminate... quite the contrary. He is seen as quite
athletic, physically skilled, and manly. The portrayal in the film
reveals our own prejudices and stereotypes more than it does Edward
II's character.
> i did find a few references on the web but nothing of any detail
> thanks
henry jakala
was he really as ruthless as depicted in the movie ??
the incident i refer to particularly was when he ordered his
archers to shoot into his own troops while they were engaged in
battle with the Scots. Also, the field commander who oversaw the
archers and ordered them to release their flight of arrows didn't
seem to think anything was wrong with the order - he did seem to
pause and think for a moment but went ahead with the order anyway.
did commanders have that low a view of their own troops to sacrifice
them in such a manner ??? i realize that this is a movie so
dramatic embellishments may have been made.
other points from the movie -
did Longshanks truly send his son's wife to negotiate with Wallace ?
i would have thought that women wouldn't have been relied on for
what might have been considered a "man's" duty - noegotiating with
an enemy
was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
i did find a few references on the web but nothing of any detail
thanks
Marie Braden
> was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
> film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
> out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
According to the book QUEEN CONSORTS OF ENGLAND, the wife had two or three
children, then overthrew him in favor of her son...then had him put to death
by ramming a redhot poker up his arse. So, probably, yes to the homosexual
question (the poetic justice factor of the means of execution)
wmcle...@aol.com
Edward I was a hard man, quite capable of having those he considered
rebels executed with deliberate cruelty. On the other hand, he did much to
improve England's laws and government, and was a loving husband. There is
no evidence he threw his son's boyfriend out a window, although it might
have saved time if he had. See below.
As a soldier, Edward was generally a skilled tactician, with a high regard
for the value of infantry. His actual tactic against Wallace (after an
unsuccessful Cavalry charge, launched contrary to his wishes by a
sub-commander, was recalled) consisted of keeping his troops out of melee,
bombarding the Scots with arrows until holes began to open in their
formation, and only then sending in the heavy cavalry. Worked like a
charm.
Ordinary cooking oil, when poured on the ground and ignited, does not
behave like napalm. You can test this yourself with some Crisco. Medieval
body armor was often made of small plates, but always overlapping, rather
than designed with convenient gaps between the plates to slip spearpoints
into. Nor did medieval legharness consist of pajama bottoms covered with
similar plates. Normal tactics consisted of maintaining a tight formation,
rather than spreading out into picturesque single combats.
Edward's son, later Edward II, may or not have been a homosexual. His
marriage produced several children, but he certainly had a number of male
favorites who exercised excessive influence on him. The most famous, Piers
Gaveston, was evidently not fatally thrown out a window by Edward I, since
he survived into the next reign. He was ultimately executed by disgruntled
barons. Edward II was a large, vigorous man, who more closely resembled
Mel Gibson than the wimp that played Edward in the movie.
The wife of Edward II was about eight at the time of the events depicted
in Braveheart, and living in France, which would have limited her
opportunities for romantic entanglements with William Wallace. She would
eventually prove to be adulterous, murderous and unpleasant, and was
eventually locked up by her son.
William Wallace was not a Romantic Highlander, but came from and operated
in the area around Glasgow. As the son of a Knight, he was probably rather
higher up the social food chain than depicted in the movie.
He was apparently betrayed to English, but there is no evidence that
Robert the Bruce was involved in any way.
By the way, why is it that the only major actor in the movie that's
*really* a Scot is playing the King of England?
Will
Gareth
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, henry jakala wrote:
>
>
>
> was he really as ruthless as depicted in the movie ??
This one's still a topic for heated discussion. For some reason, opinions
on the matter seems to vary depending on which side of Hadrian's Wall/the
River Severn, the historian discussing the matter is sitting on....:) For
myself, I rather think the movie overplays the ruthlessness - Edward could
be ruthless, as the citizens of Berwick could tell you, but not
excessively so - particularly for the time period we're talking about
here.
> other points from the movie -
>
> did Longshanks truly send his son's wife to negotiate with Wallace ?
> i would have thought that women wouldn't have been relied on for
> what might have been considered a "man's" duty - noegotiating with
> an enemy
As far as I know, there is no evidence for Wallace meeting with Isabella
whatsoever.
> was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
> film or am i wrong on this ??
It's hard to say for certain, but the likelyhood is yes, he was.
> he did toss his son's military aide
> out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
Erm, no idea.
____ ____
{ }------------------------------------------------{ }
{ }Gareth Marklew, { }
{ } G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk { }
{ }University of Durham. { }
{____}------------------------------------------------{____}
Charles Conway
Quoth henry jakala (jak...@netcom.com):
: the incident i refer to particularly was when he ordered his
: archers to shoot into his own troops while they were engaged in
: battle with the Scots. Also, the field commander who oversaw the
: archers and ordered them to release their flight of arrows didn't
: seem to think anything was wrong with the order - he did seem to
: pause and think for a moment but went ahead with the order anyway.
Now, I may be totally out to lunch here, but I seem to recall that that
incident was set _in the movie_ at the battle of Falkirk, where Wallace
was defeated. If that's the case, there's no evidence that I know of that
Edward I had his own soldiers shot at. However, the Welsh longbowmen
(accompanied by crossbowmen and slingmen) did play a pivotal role in
turning that battle in favour of the Edward's forces.
: did commanders have that low a view of their own troops to sacrifice
: them in such a manner ???
You basic peasant infantryman was probably fairly expendable, although it
would be a strong king who would try to get away with excessive "friendly
fire" casualties - such action would probably, under the feudal system,
irritate the nobles to whom the soldiers being fired on "belonged."
Shooting at one's own heavy cavalry would be right out of the question, I
suspect. It's interesting to note that, at the battle of Bannockburn, the
English archers were faced with a situation where they could not shoot for
fear of hitting their own men - they took up new positions, rather than
take that chance.
Cheers,
Patrick Conway
cco...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cconway/roman.html
******************************************************************************
"Millwall...are playing football as sweet as stolen kisses"
-Bryon Butler waxing poetic in _The Electronic Telegraph_, 11/11/96
******************************************************************************
Paul J. Gans
wmcle...@aol.com wrote:
[excellent stuff unfortunately deleted]
: The wife of Edward II was about eight at the time of the events depicted
: in Braveheart, and living in France, which would have limited her
: opportunities for romantic entanglements with William Wallace. She would
: eventually prove to be adulterous, murderous and unpleasant, and was
: eventually locked up by her son.
[more deletions]
One of her other major accomplishments was her claim to the
French throne. But as the French were well-acquainted with
both her and her paramour, it is not surprising that they
rejected it.
Of course, this led to the 100-years war, but then, what the
heck.
As I understand it, Edward III was a very dutiful child. Though
he knew the need to keep her locked up, he did, in fact, visit
her once a year.
A good lad.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Will Darwin
>Quoth henry jakala (jak...@netcom.com):
>
>: the incident i refer to particularly was when he ordered his
>: archers to shoot into his own troops while they were engaged in
>: battle with the Scots. Also, the field commander who oversaw the
>: archers and ordered them to release their flight of arrows didn't
>: seem to think anything was wrong with the order - he did seem to
>: pause and think for a moment but went ahead with the order anyway.
>
That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Read Keegan's (John) "Face of Battle" for an illustration of the fire
discipline of English archers. Since medieval forces derived from baronial
retinues (in part, a large part), not only would the archers have fired on
their own side but as clients of any noble, the chances are they would
have fired upon the same noble's other troops. Such an order would not
have been obeyed or else no king would have been able to raise any more
armies. The order would most likely not have been given. At Bannockburn,
the English moved positions rather than accept friendly fire.
Markus Nybom BKF
Will Darwin (wda...@worldscope.co.uk) recalls:
: That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
: with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
An earlier posting named her Isabella. Are there, in fact, different names
for her, or is one of this postings in error? Or am I messing things up?
Regards,
Markus
Joseph B. Comstock
>Will Darwin (wda...@worldscope.co.uk) recalls:
>Regards,
>Markus
Certainly it was Isabella. Eleanor had been decomposing for
generations, and an affair with her would have been somewhat
miraculous. I'm sure Will knew this, but sometimes the name of one
adulterous queen gets confused with another.
Mike Dana
Markus Nybom BKF wrote:
>
> Will Darwin (wda...@worldscope.co.uk) recalls:
>
> : That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
> : with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
>
> An earlier posting named her Isabella. Are there, in fact, different names
> for her, or is one of this postings in error? Or am I messing things up?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Eleanor of Aquitaine was Edward I's Great Grandmother, Henry II's wife.
This MUST be a case of mistaken identity; she couldn't possibly have
even MET William Wallace (she died 1 April, 1204, during her son John's
reign).
--
Mike Dana
Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
Views expressed by me are mine, not my employer's.
"One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness." --
C.S.Lewis
Gareth
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Will Darwin wrote:
>
> That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
> with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Hum, a scene with Eleanor of Aquitaine would have been a slight divergence
from history. She was Edward Longshanks' great-grandmother - the wife of
King Henry II ;)
Lee Carter
jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
> was he really as ruthless as depicted in the movie ??
> the incident i refer to particularly was when he ordered his
> archers to shoot into his own troops while they were engaged in
> battle with the Scots. Also, the field commander who oversaw the
> archers and ordered them to release their flight of arrows didn't
> seem to think anything was wrong with the order - he did seem to
> pause and think for a moment but went ahead with the order anyway.
> did commanders have that low a view of their own troops to sacrifice
> them in such a manner ??? i realize that this is a movie so
> dramatic embellishments may have been made.
Yes he was... this was a normal tactic used for a very long time.
However Henry V released the flight of arrows then sent in the troops
to win the Battle of Agrincourt.
> other points from the movie -
> did Longshanks truly send his son's wife to negotiate with Wallace ?
> i would have thought that women wouldn't have been relied on for
> what might have been considered a "man's" duty - noegotiating with
> an enemy
According to history, Edward II was not married until after the death
of his father.. Longshanks would never send a woman in.
Read the history regarding the birth of Edward II, his mother while
giving birth was a beseiged queen in Wales with the Welsh surrounding
the castle. Longshanks was in the middle of negotiating with the
Welsh and promised a Prince of Wales who was born in Wales, and was
not able to talk English or was English.. Edward II was then born..
thus the start of use of Prince of Wales... Longshanks was a sneaky
diplomat.
> was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
> film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
> out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
Edward II was allegedly a homosexual.. He had two favorites that
allegedly came in between he and his wife Isabelle the Capet.
No, I have not seen or read anything of the sort.. Since Longshanks
gave no authority to his son until his death.. Longshanks knew of his
son's shortcomings and would not give him any authority.
Read Thomas Costain's History of the Planengents(sic) He covers
Longshanks reign from beginning to end and also his son's
reign also.
Lee Carter (mo...@well.com)
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
To answer these questions:
1) Yes, Edward II is thought to have been homosexual.
2) No, there is no record of Edward I tossing anyone associated with
his son out a window, nor is there any record of the future Edward II having
a "liason" with anyone--male or female--during this period. Of
course, the movie also depicts his marriage to an adult Isabella,
where in truth she was a very young child during the period in question.
Edward II's controversial friendships came later, when he was
king--first with Piers Gaveston (who was eventually put to death) and
then with the Despensers. In neither case was anyone thrown out a window,
and the main reason that these "favourites" were removed had less to deal
with rumours of homosexual liasons then with the fact that Edward II gave
them lands and titles and promoted them above their stations. After all,
Edward had done his duty and fathered a healthy male heir; who really
cared that he liked men? It was more the fact that he _promoted_ these
favourites.
The hot poker thing may have been intended to be "poetic justice", but it
was also a nifty way of killing someone without leaving a mark on the body.
Cheers--
Susan Carroll-Clark
scl...@chass.utoronto.ca
Paul J. Gans
Joseph B. Comstock (Boni...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:: >: That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
: >: with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
:
: >An earlier posting named her Isabella. Are there, in fact, different names
: >for her, or is one of this postings in error? Or am I messing things up?
:
: >Regards,
: >Markus
: Certainly it was Isabella. Eleanor had been decomposing for
: generations, and an affair with her would have been somewhat
: miraculous. I'm sure Will knew this, but sometimes the name of one
: adulterous queen gets confused with another.
Now now, let's not go sullying the Great Eleanor's name.
Outside of the story of Eleanor and her Uncle in Jerusalem,
which may or may not be true, (she was then married to the
French King at the time and still quite young), I'm not
aware of any report of this.
Isabella is another story.
Paul J. Gans
Markus Nybom BKF (man...@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: Will Darwin (wda...@worldscope.co.uk) recalls:
:
: : That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
: : with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
:
: An earlier posting named her Isabella. Are there, in fact, different names
: for her, or is one of this postings in error? Or am I messing things up?
Well, since Eleanor had been dead for quite a while, it was
probably an error.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Joseph B. Comstock
ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>Joseph B. Comstock (Boni...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Certainly it was Isabella. Eleanor had been decomposing for
>: generations, and an affair with her would have been somewhat
>: miraculous. I'm sure Will knew this, but sometimes the name of one
>: adulterous queen gets confused with another.
>Now now, let's not go sullying the Great Eleanor's name.
>Outside of the story of Eleanor and her Uncle in Jerusalem,
>which may or may not be true, (she was then married to the
>French King at the time and still quite young), I'm not
>aware of any report of this.
>Isabella is another story.
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
I was being facetious, of course, but it would rather disappoint me if
Eleanor had not cuckolded Louis, even if the rumors themselves are
easy to dismiss. I take it you don't believe the one about her and
Saladin either?
Kim Malo
I thought she and Henry set the horns firmly on Louis' head. Am I wrong?
-Kim
Goodqueen
Edward III did not keep his mother, Queen Isabella, locked up after the
execution of Mortimer. He designated Castle Rising for her use and
provided her with an ample allowance, and she came and went from that
place as she pleased. There are plenty of records that show that she
often kept Christmas at court, and she was even sent to France to
negotiate a brief post-plague truce in 1349.
The military records of Bannockburn are a confusion of conflicting
accounts, so that no one can set down with any precision exactly what
happened. One account that I read recently by the late Michael Packe, was
that Gilbert de Clare had intended to send his Welsh archers in at the
very beginning of the battle, as the Scots fared ill against the
long-range arrows of the longbow. He was taunted by his uncle, Edward II,
with cowardice for wishing to postpone the battle for a day, since the
English had suffered a long and weary march northward, and the Scots were
fresh. He therefore led his knights directly into the fray to prove his
bravery, but then the archers could not be utilized. Much later in the
battle, the Welsh were moved into a flanking position so that they could
fire, and the Bruce sent his mounted men to scatter them. The Welsh fled
to the rear, where they were set upon and beaten for cowardice by the
English soldiers!
Cowgirlsue
<< I take it you don't believe the one about her and Saladin either?
Saladin? I don't think Eleanor ever really met him, and even if she did
whilst on Crusade, he would have been a lad of , uhm, maybe 12? Hardly
ripe for passion!
More credible, slightly, is the story of an affair btwn Eleanor and
Raymond of Antioch. It was while visiting Raymond that Eleanor asked
Louis for a divorce and announced that she wished to return to her role as
Duchess of Aquitane, and would stay behind in Antioch. It was from
Antioch that she was "kidnapped" by her husband and forced to continue on
Crusade. While Eleanor adored Raymond and was reportedly affectionately
demonstrative, he was her uncle, after all, and incest was taboo. He
was more a father figure than a potential lover.
If ever there was a husband ot be cuckolded, Louis was it, but there is no
hard evidence that Eleanor was unfaithful...although I think she was
plight-trothed to Henry whilst still married to Louis, if you want to
count that!
Susan M. Morris
Pittsburgh, PA
Paul J. Gans
Susan Carroll-Clark (scl...@chass.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: Greetings!
The rumor (and it is just that) of Edward II's homosexuality
is quite early, I believe. As is the poker story.
Susan Caroll-Clark's last point is very important. The King's
body would HAVE to be put on public display. The body would
have to be washed and wrapped. Any evidence of foul play would
have been very difficult to surpress.
The entire story of Edward II's death, the usurpation of his
throne, the coup (for that is what it was) by which his son
regained the throne, and the political machinations leading
to the Hundred Years war (also initmately tied up in this)
make fascinating reading. As do the "goings-on" in Paris.
There was a change in dynasty there, a posthumous Royal Birth,
and other amazing events. Fascinating couple of years. Anyone
interested should check it out. There's way too much for a posting.
Paul J. Gans
:
: >Joseph B. Comstock (Boni...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
:
: >:
: >: Certainly it was Isabella. Eleanor had been decomposing for
: >: generations, and an affair with her would have been somewhat
: >: miraculous. I'm sure Will knew this, but sometimes the name of one
: >: adulterous queen gets confused with another.
:
: >Now now, let's not go sullying the Great Eleanor's name.
: >Outside of the story of Eleanor and her Uncle in Jerusalem,
: >which may or may not be true, (she was then married to the
: >French King at the time and still quite young), I'm not
: >aware of any report of this.
:
: >Isabella is another story.
:
: > ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
:
: I was being facetious, of course, but it would rather disappoint me if
: Eleanor had not cuckolded Louis, even if the rumors themselves are
: Saladin either?
Absolutely not, since Saladin wasn't a major factor (i.e. a child)
when Eleanor was in the Holy Land.
She was rather young when married to Louis, so it is not clear
what she might have done. Certainly there was no rumor of it
on their divorce.
Eleanor was a major problem in Western Europe. She was the
rightful Duchess of Aquitaine, one of the richest regions of
Europe. It's income was more than that of all of England.
And Aquitaine was not that closely bound to France. And
Eleanor was headstrong, beautiful, and young. I believe
she was 15 when Louis married her. She bore him two
daughters, but no sons. When he divorced her there is
no doubt that he intended to marry her off, if he could,
to someone quite loyal to him. He might not have been
able to, as she could not be forced.
But soon after the divorce, too soon, in fact, she ran off
with young Henry fitz Empress, Duke of Anjou and, by agreement
with Stephen, future king of England.
Tongues wagged, since supposedly they had only met once before.
She was a good bit older than Henry at the time. I believe
he was still a teen-ager and she was in her mid-twenties.
After that, her history got really interesting.
She outlived Louis, Henry, and her son Richard, dying
if memory serves, in the very early 1200's.
Paul J. Gans
Goodqueen (good...@aol.com) wrote:
: Edward III did not keep his mother, Queen Isabella, locked up after the
: execution of Mortimer. He designated Castle Rising for her use and
: provided her with an ample allowance, and she came and went from that
: place as she pleased. There are plenty of records that show that she
: often kept Christmas at court, and she was even sent to France to
: negotiate a brief post-plague truce in 1349.
I stand corrected. My source (at home) has led me astray.
[rest deleted]
Todd A. Farmerie
> jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>
> > did Longshanks truly send his son's wife to negotiate with Wallace ?
> > i would have thought that women wouldn't have been relied on for
> > what might have been considered a "man's" duty - noegotiating with
> > an enemy
young child, unmarried, and in France when Wallace died. I doubt her
father the King of France would have permitted it.
It was invented in the movie as a fitting revenge for Edward's supposed
strategy against the Scots that started it all, breeding them out of
existance. (That and to give interested viewers another chance at
seeing Mel take his shirt off.)
Todd
Joseph B. Comstock
cowgi...@aol.com (Cowgirlsue) wrote:
><< I take it you don't believe the one about her and Saladin either?
>Saladin? I don't think Eleanor ever really met him, and even if she did
>whilst on Crusade, he would have been a lad of , uhm, maybe 12? Hardly
>ripe for passion!
I know that, I was picking on the later legends about the Crusades:)
Speaking of which, does anyone know what happened to Arnold
Shwarzenegger's upcoming movie about the Crusades? The IMDB doesn't
list it anymore...
>More credible, slightly, is the story of an affair btwn Eleanor and
>Raymond of Antioch. It was while visiting Raymond that Eleanor asked
>Louis for a divorce and announced that she wished to return to her role as
>Duchess of Aquitane, and would stay behind in Antioch. It was from
>Antioch that she was "kidnapped" by her husband and forced to continue on
>Crusade. While Eleanor adored Raymond and was reportedly affectionately
>demonstrative, he was her uncle, after all, and incest was taboo. He
>was more a father figure than a potential lover.
That rumor started all this.... Raymond was only a few years older, as
I recall, and not likely to be a father figure. How strong would the
"incest taboo" have really been? The Church prohibited marriage within
varying degrees, but that could be interpreted as differently from
incest as celibacy was from virginity. Also, Aquitaine seems to have
had a different moral code than France. We have seen that even the
rules of consanguinuity were set aside with few moral struggles, as I
believe they were in the case of Louis and Eleanor. (BTW, my questions
aren't rhetorical here. I don't know.)
Joseph B. Comstock
ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
:
>: >Joseph B. Comstock (Boni...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
>:
>:
>: I was being facetious, of course, but it would rather disappoint me if
>: Eleanor had not cuckolded Louis, even if the rumors themselves are
>: easy to dismiss. I take it you don't believe the one about her and
>: Saladin either?
>Absolutely not, since Saladin wasn't a major factor (i.e. a child)
>when Eleanor was in the Holy Land.
>She was rather young when married to Louis, so it is not clear
>what she might have done. Certainly there was no rumor of it
>on their divorce.
Are you sure of this? (On her affair with Raymond... I was teasing
about Saladin, too. Got to use those silly smily faces from now
on....) I thought I remember reading contemporary accounts of rumors
of her and Raymond, but I don't recall where, now.
>Eleanor was a major problem in Western Europe. She was the
>rightful Duchess of Aquitaine, one of the richest regions of
>Europe. It's income was more than that of all of England.
>And Aquitaine was not that closely bound to France. And
>Eleanor was headstrong, beautiful, and young. I believe
>she was 15 when Louis married her. She bore him two
>daughters, but no sons. When he divorced her there is
>no doubt that he intended to marry her off, if he could,
>to someone quite loyal to him. He might not have been
>able to, as she could not be forced.
>But soon after the divorce, too soon, in fact, she ran off
>with young Henry fitz Empress, Duke of Anjou and, by agreement
>with Stephen, future king of England.
>Tongues wagged, since supposedly they had only met once before.
>She was a good bit older than Henry at the time. I believe
>he was still a teen-ager and she was in her mid-twenties.
>After that, her history got really interesting.
>She outlived Louis, Henry, and her son Richard, dying
>if memory serves, in the very early 1200's.
She died in 1204. I'm interested in the timetable of the infidelity
story, though. Do you recall off-hand any lit on when the rumors
started?
One more post, and we need to rename this thread...
Joseph B. Comstock
ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>Susan Carroll-Clark (scl...@chass.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: Greetings!
>:
>: To answer these questions:
>:
>: 1) Yes, Edward II is thought to have been homosexual.
{snip}
>: In neither case was anyone thrown out a window,
>: and the main reason that these "favourites" were removed had less to deal
>: with rumours of homosexual liasons then with the fact that Edward II gave
>: them lands and titles and promoted them above their stations. After all,
>: Edward had done his duty and fathered a healthy male heir; who really
>: cared that he liked men? It was more the fact that he _promoted_ these
>: favourites.
>:
>: The hot poker thing may have been intended to be "poetic justice", but it
>: was also a nifty way of killing someone without leaving a mark on the body.
>The rumor (and it is just that) of Edward II's homosexuality
>is quite early, I believe. As is the poker story.
Do you emphasize "rumor" to state that this is not the case, or that
it may have been just a rumor then? It seems that some of the
anonymous "Life of Edward," written while he was alive, is unclear,
but may be describing a homosexual relationship even before he died.
(I know this topic has been endlessly covered, but what the heck!
Someone may have missed it.)
>Susan Caroll-Clark's last point is very important. The King's
>body would HAVE to be put on public display. The body would
>have to be washed and wrapped. Any evidence of foul play would
>have been very difficult to surpress.
I'm curious about this point, too. Would the body have been displayed
clothed? If so, many wounds would have been disguisable. If not, there
are other methods, surely (suffocation and poison come to mind) that
would not have left marks. I'm not even convinced that a hot poker
would not have left some marks, although perhaps in a region people
would not have inspected closely. You'll have to convince me further
that the poker did not have some other meaning...
If it is even true, of course. When did that story first appear? It
seems like a good story to create if you want to accuse someone of
horribly murdering a king while at the same time explaining why no one
noticed that the king had been horribly murdered...
Kimball Kinnison
>cowgi...@aol.com (Cowgirlsue) wrote:
>
>><< I take it you don't believe the one about her and Saladin either?
>
>Speaking of which, does anyone know what happened to Arnold
>Shwarzenegger's upcoming movie about the Crusades? The IMDB doesn't
>list it anymore...
>
There's a fascinating web site that spends a great deal of time and
effort (almost as much as IMDB does on completed films) chasing down
and documenting rumors about movies in (pre-)production.
The URL is: http://www.islandnet.com/~corona/films/allfilms.html
According to them, 'Crusade' is in Development Hell...
Sigh.
Paul J. Gans
Kim Malo (kma...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: Joseph B. Comstock wrote:
: >
: >
: > >Joseph B. Comstock (Boni...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: >
: > >:
: > >: generations, and an affair with her would have been somewhat
: > >: miraculous. I'm sure Will knew this, but sometimes the name of one
: > >: adulterous queen gets confused with another.
: >
: > >Now now, let's not go sullying the Great Eleanor's name.
: > >Outside of the story of Eleanor and her Uncle in Jerusalem,
: > >which may or may not be true, (she was then married to the
: > >French King at the time and still quite young), I'm not
: > >aware of any report of this.
: >
: > >Isabella is another story.
: >
: > > ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
: >
: > Eleanor had not cuckolded Louis, even if the rumors themselves are
: > Saladin either?
:
: I thought she and Henry set the horns firmly on Louis' head. Am I wrong?
Entirely possible, but there's no evidence. The story of Henry's
"courtship" is very strange. If anyone can throw some light on
it I know we'd all be interested in reading it.
Todd A. Farmerie
henry jakala wrote:
>
> was he really as ruthless as depicted in the movie ??
>
> the incident i refer to particularly was when he ordered his
> archers to shoot into his own troops while they were engaged in
> battle with the Scots. Also, the field commander who oversaw the
> archers and ordered them to release their flight of arrows didn't
> seem to think anything was wrong with the order - he did seem to
> pause and think for a moment but went ahead with the order anyway.
>
> did commanders have that low a view of their own troops to sacrifice
> them in such a manner ??? i realize that this is a movie so
> dramatic embellishments may have been made.
Perhaps this is more of a question for soc.hist.war (please direct
non-medieval followups to that group), but any commander must be willing
to sacrifice whatever troops are needed to win a battle (or, more
precisely, to win the war - sometimes you are as well off losing a
battle as sacrificing yourself to win). The same tactic was employed by
Lord Cornwallis at Guilford Courthouse (U.S. Revolution), effectively
clearing the field with cannon fire as the tide of battle began to turn
against him. (And the lifespan of the commander of archery who said
"excuse me, Mr. King, but I don't think that would be ethical" could not
have been long or painless.)
The major question a commander must address is the effect such an act
will have on the morale of ones surviving troops. After all, those of
your men that you toast in the field would probably end up dead or
captured anyhow, but any soldier witnessing such an act might be a
little bit slower to advance/quicker to flee in the future. On the
other hand, the enemy might be a bit more hesitant to press an
advantage.
taf
Paul J. Gans
: >: Greetings!
: >:
: >: To answer these questions:
: >:
: >: 1) Yes, Edward II is thought to have been homosexual.
:
: {snip}
:
: >: In neither case was anyone thrown out a window,
: >: and the main reason that these "favourites" were removed had less to deal
: >: with rumours of homosexual liasons then with the fact that Edward II gave
I've renamed the thread as Longshanks gets shortshrift here. And
I've left the previous post intact for reference, since the
thread is renamed.
I'm working now on pure memory of the last time this was
discussed on the medieval mailing list. Susan Caroll-Clark
will probably either know or remember it better than I.
I do not think that stories of his homosexuality appeared
until after his death. The story of his death (by hot
poker) has been "debunked" by some and "confirmed" by other
medieval historians. There seems to be an almost
contemporary reference to his death in which his (Edward's)
screams continued for hours and were heard well outside
the castle in which he was being held. That may or may
not be taken as confirmation of the poker story.
As far as other methods of death, as I noted the body
would have had to be washed and dressed, probably by
clerics. Stab wounds, cut throats, strangulation, etc.,
all leave marks and somebody might well have talked.
Don't forget, Regicide was a sin akin to murdering a
bishop. Both king and bishop were annointed with the
same holy oil.
For more we must wait for Those Who Know to comment.
wvanh...@aol.com
In article <5dlvr7$4cr$3...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J.
Gans) writes:
>:
>: The hot poker thing may have been intended to be "poetic justice", but
it
>: was also a nifty way of killing someone without leaving a mark on the
body.
>
>The rumor (and it is just that) of Edward II's homosexuality
>is quite early, I believe. As is the poker story.
>
>Susan Caroll-Clark's last point is very important. The King's
>body would HAVE to be put on public display. The body would
>have to be washed and wrapped. Any evidence of foul play would
>have been very difficult to surpress.
>
>
I read "somewhere and long ago" that the Hot poker method was used
so as not to violate a prohibition against "shedding the blood of the
King."
Considering the nit-picking of the time , does that make sense?
W F VAN HOUTEN
NO CLAIM TO FAME
Gareth
On 11 Feb 1997, Paul J. Gans wrote:
> For more we must wait for Those Who Know to comment.
>
Brant Gibbard
Boni...@mail.utexas.edu (Joseph B. Comstock) wrote:
>That rumor started all this.... Raymond was only a few years older, as
>I recall, and not likely to be a father figure. How strong would the
>"incest taboo" have really been? The Church prohibited marriage within
>varying degrees, but that could be interpreted as differently from
>incest as celibacy was from virginity. Also, Aquitaine seems to have
>had a different moral code than France. We have seen that even the
>rules of consanguinuity were set aside with few moral struggles, as I
>believe they were in the case of Louis and Eleanor. (BTW, my questions
>aren't rhetorical here. I don't know.)
>
>
Would uncle-niece relationships necessarily have been considered
incestuous? I know that several kings and queens of Portugal married
nieces, uncles, etc. By this I mean would it have been considered
morally repugnant, as opposed to a marriage of second cousins which
the church might consider to be within the prohibited degrees of
consanguinity, but that the average peasant wouldn't have given two
figs about?
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
Toronto, Ont.
Joseph B. Comstock
bgib...@inforamp.net (Brant Gibbard) wrote:
>Would uncle-niece relationships necessarily have been considered
>incestuous? I know that several kings and queens of Portugal married
>nieces, uncles, etc. By this I mean would it have been considered
>morally repugnant, as opposed to a marriage of second cousins which
>the church might consider to be within the prohibited degrees of
>consanguinity, but that the average peasant wouldn't have given two
>figs about?
Would an uncle and niece by related to the third or fourth degree? I'm
trying to recall who to count....
Either way, there is a difference between marriage and sexual
relations. One may be forbidden to marry someone that one can still be
attracted to. Sex outside marriage would have been sinful, and
marrying an uncle might have been forbidden, but that doesn't mean
that sex with that uncle would be a strong social taboo, or even
considered more sinful than sex with anyone else. I don't know, which
is why I'm asking....
A parallel could be made to priests. They were sworn to celibacy,
which meant they couldn't marry, but they were not sworn to chastity.
A priest who had sex was not breaking his vows, merely committing a
sin.
So let me restate the question. Eleanor could not have married
Raymond, but does that mean that having sexual relations with him
would have been taboo, or just a sin? People do sin, except Mary....
Todd A. Farmerie
Will Darwin wrote:
>
> >Quoth henry jakala (jak...@netcom.com):
> >
> That scene was included for dramatic effect, the same as Wallace's affair
> with Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Now THAT would have been funny, she being the quite dead g-grandmother
of Edward I.
Todd
H. Dowda
funneled into his anus? So far as it being an undetectable method of
killing, post-mortem examinations became common on kings rather early.
Any one recall when?
Kathy McIntosh
In article <5dotfg$doj$7...@news.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> writes
>Joseph B. Comstock (Boni...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>:
have left all the posters names.
> >:
>: >: The hot poker thing may have been intended to be "poetic justice", but it
>: >: was also a nifty way of killing someone without leaving a mark on the body.
>:
snipped a bit more.
>: >Susan Caroll-Clark's last point is very important. The King's
>: >body would HAVE to be put on public display. The body would
>: >have to be washed and wrapped. Any evidence of foul play would
>: >have been very difficult to surpress.
>:
>:
>: clothed? If so, many wounds would have been disguisable. If not, there
>: are other methods, surely (suffocation and poison come to mind) that
>: would not have left marks. I'm not even convinced that a hot poker
>: would not have left some marks, although perhaps in a region people
>: would not have inspected closely. You'll have to convince me further
>: that the poker did not have some other meaning...
>:
>: If it is even true, of course. When did that story first appear? It
>: seems like a good story to create if you want to accuse someone of
>: horribly murdering a king while at the same time explaining why no one
>: noticed that the king had been horribly murdered...
> The story of his death (by hot
>poker) has been "debunked" by some and "confirmed" by other
>medieval historians. There seems to be an almost
>contemporary reference to his death in which his (Edward's)
>screams continued for hours and were heard well outside
>the castle in which he was being held. That may or may
>not be taken as confirmation of the poker story.
>
>As far as other methods of death, as I noted the body
>would have had to be washed and dressed, probably by
>clerics. Stab wounds, cut throats, strangulation, etc.,
>all leave marks and somebody might well have talked.
>Don't forget, Regicide was a sin akin to murdering a
>bishop. Both king and bishop were annointed with the
>same holy oil.
>
>For more we must wait for Those Who Know to comment.
>
While I don't pretend to one of Those Who Know, I also was told about
Edward's screams being heared. I was also told that a cow's horn was
inserted first, so that the no scorch marks would show!
Different king but similar topic: Richard II is supposed to have been
layed in state after his death, already encased in his lead coffin, with
only his head on show. This was apparently done so that people wouldn't
notice that Henry IV had let him/had him starved to death. Any truth in
this?
--
Kathy McIntosh
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Robert Byrne.
Goodqueen
A priest who indulged in sexual activities was probably indeed breaking
his vows. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines 'chaste' as
1.'refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to
morality or religion,' or as 2.' virgin.' 'Celebacy' is defined as
1.'abstention from sexual relations' and 2.'abstention by vow from
marriage.'
Did a randy priest shock his flock? I should think individual reactions
ran the gamut from horrified disgust to 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink.' It is
difficult to generalize such situations, especially since there are so
many variables to consider, such as the moral views of the beholder, the
conduct of the priest concerned (promiscuous or otherwise, circumspect or
blatant, etc.).
As to whether an uncle-niece sexual and/or marital relationship would seem
shocking or sinful, it is hard to believe that it would not seem so, since
this would seem contrary to the laws of God. Perhaps a relationship
between a girl and her father's sister's widower might seem somewhat less
repugnant than between the girl and her father's brother.
Goodqueen
Eric Smith [see .sig]
good...@aol.com (Goodqueen) writes:
>A priest who indulged in sexual activities was probably indeed breaking
>his vows. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines 'chaste' as
>1.'refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to
>morality or religion,' or as 2.' virgin.' 'Celebacy' is defined as
>1.'abstention from sexual relations' and 2.'abstention by vow from
>marriage.'
But did the Random House Unabridged Dictionary definition apply in the
Middle Ages?
>Did a randy priest shock his flock? I should think individual reactions
>ran the gamut from horrified disgust to 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink.' It is
>difficult to generalize such situations, especially since there are so
>many variables to consider, such as the moral views of the beholder, the
>conduct of the priest concerned (promiscuous or otherwise, circumspect or
>blatant, etc.).
I recall hearing that rural priests, who were not closely supervised by
the Church establishment, often did marry during the Middle Ages, and
everyone bascially turned a blind eye to the fact that they were breaking
their vows. The parishioners, especially the male ones, liked the idea
because it meant the priest was more likely to be having sex at home with
his wife than elsewhere with someone else's.
-----
Eric Smith | This was posted with a fake address to
http://www.catsdogs.com | thwart bulk email programs. Email me at
| erics at netcom dot com
Joseph B. Comstock
good...@aol.com (Goodqueen) wrote:
>A priest who indulged in sexual activities was probably indeed breaking
>his vows. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines 'chaste' as
>1.'refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to
>morality or religion,' or as 2.' virgin.' 'Celebacy' is defined as
>1.'abstention from sexual relations' and 2.'abstention by vow from
>marriage.'
Random House aside, priests took vows against marriage. Extra-marital
sex was a sin, to be sure, but not a violation of the vows. Chastity
was the abstension from improper sex, which was usually considered to
be sex outside of marriage, and occasionally defined as any sex not
meant for procreation (this was not the common view, but it occurred
now and again). Monks took vows of chastity and celibacy, thus any sex
was a violation of their vows. Priests took vows of celibacy, i.e.
they vowed to remain unmarried. They did not take vows of chastity
(although I'm not sure if this is true of priests organized as
canons.) Therefore a prieast having sex was committing a sin, but was
not breaking his vows. I have been told that it is still that way
today.
>Did a randy priest shock his flock? I should think individual reactions
>ran the gamut from horrified disgust to 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink.' It is
>difficult to generalize such situations, especially since there are so
>many variables to consider, such as the moral views of the beholder, the
>conduct of the priest concerned (promiscuous or otherwise, circumspect or
>blatant, etc.).
The all-time great example of this, of course, is Pierre Clergue in
_Montaillou_.
>As to whether an uncle-niece sexual and/or marital relationship would seem
>shocking or sinful, it is hard to believe that it would not seem so, since
>this would seem contrary to the laws of God. Perhaps a relationship
>between a girl and her father's sister's widower might seem somewhat less
>repugnant than between the girl and her father's brother.
The laws of God rarely get in the way of social customs and mores.
Aquitaine, judging from the greater urbanization and from the songs of
the troubadours (which of course Eleanor's father was) seems a little
loser and freer than the Paris of Suger and Louis VII.
Eleanor may have been shocked at the thought of sex with her uncle
(who was close to her own age) or she may not have been. Neither would
prove conclusively whether she actually had relations with him, in any
case. I'm just interested in what evidence we have in this area..
>Goodqueen
Paul J. Gans
wvanh...@aol.com wrote:
: In article <5dlvr7$4cr$3...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J.
: Gans) writes:
:
: it
: >: was also a nifty way of killing someone without leaving a mark on the
: body.
: >
: >is quite early, I believe. As is the poker story.
: >Susan Caroll-Clark's last point is very important. The King's
: >body would HAVE to be put on public display. The body would
: >have to be washed and wrapped. Any evidence of foul play would
: >have been very difficult to surpress.
: >
: >
:
: King."
: Considering the nit-picking of the time , does that make sense?
Could be, though I know of no other examples. That doesn't
mean there aren't any, of course...
Paul J. Gans
Eric Smith [see .sig] (Ihat...@address.fake) wrote:
: good...@aol.com (Goodqueen) writes:
:
: >A priest who indulged in sexual activities was probably indeed breaking
: >his vows. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines 'chaste' as
: >1.'refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to
: >morality or religion,' or as 2.' virgin.' 'Celebacy' is defined as
: >1.'abstention from sexual relations' and 2.'abstention by vow from
: >marriage.'
: But did the Random House Unabridged Dictionary definition apply in the
: Middle Ages?
:
: >Did a randy priest shock his flock? I should think individual reactions
: >ran the gamut from horrified disgust to 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink.' It is
: >difficult to generalize such situations, especially since there are so
: >many variables to consider, such as the moral views of the beholder, the
: >conduct of the priest concerned (promiscuous or otherwise, circumspect or
: >blatant, etc.).
: I recall hearing that rural priests, who were not closely supervised by
: the Church establishment, often did marry during the Middle Ages, and
: everyone bascially turned a blind eye to the fact that they were breaking
: their vows. The parishioners, especially the male ones, liked the idea
: because it meant the priest was more likely to be having sex at home with
: his wife than elsewhere with someone else's.
The prohibition against marriage for the lower clergy is a
"late" invention by medieval standards. The Eastern Church
never embraced it and to this day many Orthodox priests are
happily married.
Not only did the married clergy persist, but clerical liasons
were not uncommon. They are much less common today but also
not unknown.
Monks, especially the non-clerical brothers, were also able
to have various liasons, often leading to children.
It took the Church a long long time to convince everyone that
this was bad.
Sue Thing
In article <19970213004...@ladder01.news.aol.com> good...@aol.com (Goodqueen) writes:
[snip]
>As to whether an uncle-niece sexual and/or marital relationship would seem
>shocking or sinful, it is hard to believe that it would not seem so, since
>this would seem contrary to the laws of God. Perhaps a relationship
>between a girl and her father's sister's widower might seem somewhat less
>repugnant than between the girl and her father's brother.
Henry VIII used a claim of incest in seeking his divorce from Katharine of
Aragon, since Katharine was his widowed sister-in-law.
Sue
***************************************
Sue Thing plbu...@goodnet.com
"Canister on top of the round shot, sir.
That'll learn 'em."
_Hornblower and the Hotspur_
***************************************
Joseph B. Comstock
ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>wvanh...@aol.com wrote:
>:
>: I read "somewhere and long ago" that the Hot poker method was used
>: so as not to violate a prohibition against "shedding the blood of the
>: King."
>: Considering the nit-picking of the time , does that make sense?
>Could be, though I know of no other examples. That doesn't
>mean there aren't any, of course...
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
I don't know of this prohibition in Medieval England. Technically, I
don't think kings are supposed to be killed by their followers at all,
which would seem a more imediate concern to the rebels.
However, in Ottoman history, the brothers of the new sultan were
ritually (and literally) strangled with a golden bow string to prevent
the shedding of blood (also to prevent rival claimants). Perhaps this
is what was remembered....
Paul J. Gans
H. Dowda (hdo...@scsn.net) wrote:
: wvanh...@aol.com wrote:
: >
: > In article <5dlvr7$4cr$3...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J.
: > Gans) writes:
: >
: > >:
: > >: The hot poker thing may have been intended to be "poetic justice", but
: > it
: > >: was also a nifty way of killing someone without leaving a mark on the
: > body.
: > >
: > >The rumor (and it is just that) of Edward II's homosexuality
: > >is quite early, I believe. As is the poker story.
: > >
: > >Susan Caroll-Clark's last point is very important. The King's
: > >body would HAVE to be put on public display. The body would
: > >have to be washed and wrapped. Any evidence of foul play would
: > >have been very difficult to surpress.
: > >
: > >
: >
: > so as not to violate a prohibition against "shedding the blood of the
: > King."
: > Considering the nit-picking of the time , does that make sense?
: >
: > W F VAN HOUTEN
: > NO CLAIM TO FAME
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: Wasn't a later king, Henry VI I recall killed by having melted lead
: funneled into his anus? So far as it being an undetectable method of
: killing, post-mortem examinations became common on kings rather early.
: Any one recall when?
Well, the removal of internal organs was certainly common. Henry I
was shipped back to England for burial (he died in France) sans
innards which, I believe, were buried in France.
Thus some sorts of damage (especially of the sort you mention)
might well have been noticed. But I doubt that post-mortem
internal exams were the rule. They still aren't if no foul
play is suspected.
Pete Barrett
On 13 Feb 1997 00:44:25 GMT, good...@aol.com (Goodqueen) wrote:
>As to whether an uncle-niece sexual and/or marital relationship would seem
>shocking or sinful, it is hard to believe that it would not seem so, since
>this would seem contrary to the laws of God. Perhaps a relationship
>between a girl and her father's sister's widower might seem somewhat less
>repugnant than between the girl and her father's brother.
>
I seem to remember that uncle-niece marriages were allowed (though they needed a
papal dispensation), but that aunt-nephew marriages were absolutely forbidden.
Mind you, it could have been the other way round...
Pete Barrett
Pete Barrett
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:05:05 GMT, Ihat...@address.fake (Eric Smith [see .sig])
wrote:
>I recall hearing that rural priests, who were not closely supervised by
>the Church establishment, often did marry during the Middle Ages, and
>everyone bascially turned a blind eye to the fact that they were breaking
>their vows. The parishioners, especially the male ones, liked the idea
>because it meant the priest was more likely to be having sex at home with
>his wife than elsewhere with someone else's.
>
When King John was having trouble with the church, he apparently put pressure on
the English priests by arresting their 'housekeepers' and holding them to
ransom!
Pete Barrett
DanR255843
Were it not for a 200 year difference in their birth dates, perhaps Edward
might have been more interested.
DanR255843
The term "ruthless" implies a value judgement based upon modern
conceptions. Whether or not he was "ruthless" would have had to be judged
in the context of his times. That being the case, he was probably no more
"ruthless" than most of his predecessors or successors. Remember that the
path to the crown was usually paved with blood.
Regarding the assassination of Wallace, he was captured in London upon
return from a trip to France after the defeat at Falkirk.(Parenthetically,
movies tend to compress time. There was a 17 year span between Falkirk and
BannockMon.) Wallace was in France attempting to enlist the aid of the
French in his struggle against the British (they refused).
Regarding the homosexuality of Edward II, odds are that this
characterization was based upon opinions about his selected life style.
Edward II abandoned his fathers's attempt to expand the Kingdom, and spent
his life in revelry. In the context of the times, that made him a
"sodomite."
Mr C Roberts
The originator of this thread wrote:-
>was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
>film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
>out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
The answer is Yes. Edward II, as his son was later to become, was a
Homosexual. Regarding the defenestration, I think that was done purely for
dramatic effect in the film, it having no historical basis.
Goodqueen
First, there is evidence that Edward II's sexual preferences were indeed
cause for comment during his lifetime. When the younger Hugh Despenser
was executed, among other well-deserved atrocities committed upon him, his
privy member was allegedly severed and stuffed into his mouth, as
punishment for his 'unnatural acts,' and it was whispered that these acts
involved the king.
The account of the red-hot poker used in Edward's murder first surfaced in
the Polychron; the author's name is not coming to me at the moment, but he
did reside at Berkeley castle once it was restored to the Berkeleys. If I
recall correctly, the details of the murder were confided to him by one
who was present at the murder, though whether it was Maultrevers, Gurney
or Ogle, or a member of the garrison, I cannot recall.
Edward was put to death not because he was homosexual (and though the
evidence pointing to his homosexuality is strong, it is by no means
conclusive), nor even because it irritated his nobles that he tended to
take favorites and elevate them to positions of power and influence, but
because he allowed the Despensers to get violently out of hand. They ran
roughshod over the rights of the barons; and when Edward ordered the
wholesale imprisonment and executions of Lancaster's followers after
Lancaster's beheading, the two Hughs quite literally took the law into
their own hands. Under the flimsiest of pretexts they flung barons into
prisons and Edward confiscated their lands and castles, and even the wives
and children were imprisoned, and the women were threatened with torture
until they signed over their dower lands to the Despensers. Utter chaos
and lawlessness had settled over the kingdom by the time Queen Isabella
and Sir Roger Mortimer arrived with their troops, which was why they were
able to win the entire kingdom to their side without the shedding of
blood.
For a truly fascinating and eye-opening account of the atrocities that
were committed during this period of terrorism, read Natalie Fryde's _The
Tyranny and Fall of Edward II._
Goodqueen
Goodqueen
Hal
"Mr C Roberts" <jrob...@softsw.ssw.com> wrote:
> The originator of this thread wrote:-
>
> >was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
> >film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
> >out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
>
> The answer is Yes. Edward II, as his son was later to become, was a
>Homosexual.
And how can you say the above with such certainty? Do you have some kind
of unassailable proof that has eluded historians over the centuries?
Hal
Hal
Jenny Weber
Actually, I believe that's great-great-grandmother (Eleanor --> John -->
Henry --> Edward). I think Mel took the less icky way out,
personally...
Morgoth
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Mr C Roberts wrote:
> The originator of this thread wrote:-
>
> >was Longshank's son homosexual - that's the impression i got from the
> >film or am i wrong on this ?? he did toss his son's military aide
> >out a window to his death - is this accurate ??
>
> The answer is Yes. Edward II, as his son was later to become, was a
> Homosexual. Regarding the defenestration, I think that was done purely for
> dramatic effect in the film, it having no historical basis.
>
>
Just cause a person is homsexual, does not make them effeminate.
Holywood loves to sterotype, and Edward II was such in the movie.
We must also remember the source of the movie. Wallace writing
about a fellow Wallace.
Mike Adams
PS: it would be like me writing about John, or Samual Adams.
Evelyn Barney
I agree that the movie treatment of young Edward was unattractive, to say
the least. BUT, that is not the author's fault. If you read the book, you
will find that Edward is not so 'fay.' In fact, his sexuality is quite
played down. This was a problem, I think with casting. And it may also
have to do with Gibson's notions of sexuality. dunno.
Also, Isabella had four children. Now I realize that they could WELL have
been young Edward's, sexual preference aside, but since both the movie and
book suggest at least the first was not, is their any evidence for that?
Some historical facts: (as I understand them) Isabella gave the order to
execute Edward II. He was executed in Berkley Tower after having been
forced to turn his crown over to Edward III. Edward III in turn had his
mother Isabella executed for treason against his father.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rebel Without A Sig
Govind III Rashtrakut
In article <01bc24cb$5a2a1680$7448...@tigereye1.javanet.com>,
Evelyn Barney <tige...@javanet.com> wrote:
>
>Also, Isabella had four children. Now I realize that they could WELL have
>been young Edward's, sexual preference aside, but since both the movie and
>book suggest at least the first was not, is their any evidence for that?
children. Also Edward II was not the wimp the movie potrays him (on a
personal level)- a couple of books I read refer to him a "athletic and
handsome". He is also supposed to have fathered a bastard named Adam.
>
>Some historical facts: (as I understand them) Isabella gave the order to
>execute Edward II. He was executed in Berkley Tower after having been
>forced to turn his crown over to Edward III. Edward III in turn had his
>mother Isabella executed for treason against his father.
Edward II was forced to abdicate in favor of his son the Duke of Aquitaine
in 1327. He was put to death shortly after. The real power behind the
throne was Isabella's lover Roger Mortimer. In 1330 in a coup with the
help of his barons, Edward III overthrew the Mortimer controlled regency.
Mortimer was executed for treason. Isabella was forced to retire from
public life. She died peacefully and almost forgotten (at least I think
so - noone refers to her once th 100 years war started) in the 1350's.
--
Govind III Rashtrakut ----------------------> E - Mail : dk...@tamu.edu
http://http.tamu.edu/~dsk5432
******************************************************************************
Hal
"Evelyn Barney" <tige...@javanet.com> wrote:
>snip
> Edward III in turn had his
>mother Isabella executed for treason against his father.
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rebel Without A Sig
>
The above runs counter to everything I have read and understood to be the
case. Edw III had Isabella's paramour (Roger Mortimer) executed but he
merely had is mother confined. If I'm incorrect, plse tell me your source
for the contrary.
Thank you,
Hal
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
>Also, Isabella had four children. Now I realize that they could WELL have
>been young Edward's, sexual preference aside, but since both the movie and
>book suggest at least the first was not, is their any evidence for that?
First, there is the fact that the movie distorts the historical timeline.
Isabella was eight or nine years old when Wallace was executed, and there is
no evidence they ever met, much less were lovers and conceived a child. Just
for the record, William Wallace was excuted in August, 1304, while Edward I
was still on the throne. Edward I died in 1307 and was succeeded by
his son, Edward II. The future Edward III was born in November, 1312.
Edward's marriage to the twelve year old Isabella, who had not set
foot in England until then, happened on January 25, 1308, _after_ his father's
death (they *had* been betrothed for years).
Cheers--
Susan Carroll-Clark
scl...@chass.utoronto.ca
John Yohalem
On 27 Feb 1997 16:43:40 GMT, "Evelyn Barney" <tige...@javanet.com>
wrote:
>Also, Isabella had four children. Now I realize that they could WELL have
>been young Edward's, sexual preference aside, but since both the movie and
>book suggest at least the first was not, is their any evidence for that?
Isabella had not left France and was a child of 12 when Wallace was
executed. She did not marry Edward II until he had been crowned king.
Princes of Wales rarely married before ascending the throne until
modern times. (There have been only nine princesses of Wales since the
title was created for Edward II.) Isabella's first child, the future
Edward III, was not born until 1312 -- when Wallace had been dead
seven years. There is no evidence or even rumor within centuries of
the event that her children were fathered by anyone but her husband.
Among Britain's other gay kings, Richard I left an illegitimate son,
James I fathered eight children (three survived infancy) by his wife,
and William III had several children (all born dead) by his wife, Mary
II.
Yes, gay men can and do father children. What's the problem?
>
>Some historical facts: (as I understand them) Isabella gave the order to
>execute Edward II. He was executed in Berkley Tower after having been
>forced to turn his crown over to Edward III. Edward III in turn had his
>mother Isabella executed for treason against his father.
No one knows who gave the order -- it was probably her lover, Roger
Mortimer, or the Bishop of Norwich, the Chancellor.
Imprisoned, not executed Isabella. She lived a good long time. Only
Henry VIII ever actually exectuted queens of England. (Unless you
count Jane Grey, in the reign of his daughter.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Dan...@msn.com
Mr C Roberts <jrob...@softsw.ssw.com> wrote in article
<01bc1eb1$b3e97f00$LocalHost@home>...
>
> The answer is Yes. Edward II, as his son was later to become, was a
> Homosexual. Regarding the defenestration, I think that was done purely
for
> dramatic effect in the film, it having no historical basis.
First, it is clear that Edward II was not a homosexual. He had four
children by his wife, Queen Isabelle, and at least one bastard son,
probably conceived before his marriage. The most one could say is that
Edward was bisexual.
Second, it is not absolutely certain that Edward was bisexual, either. A
recent book on the life of Piers Gaveston by Pierre Chaplais concludes that
the relationship between Edward and Piers was based on the medieval concept
of brotherhood, not on sexual attraction.
True, many historians have concluded that Edward II did have a sexual
relationship with Piers Gaveston (and perhaps with others as well, but
other interpretations are possible, as Prof. Chaplais shows.
Dana Sample
Evelyn Barney
>
> Yes, gay men can and do father children. What's the problem?
None, I said myself that it was more than possible. However, having read
the book Braveheart I was curious to know if their were any allegations
that Isabellas children were not Edward's. Information like yours has
answered my question
1) It is impossible that it was Wallace and 2) apparently there is no
rumor it was anyone else other than Edward.
I thought perhaps Bravehearts innuendo had some basis in history or some
other legend re: Isabella's brood. Apparently not. Thanks to everyone for
the clarification.
> >
> >Some historical facts: (as I understand them) Isabella gave the order
to
> >execute Edward II.
>
> No one knows who gave the order -- it was probably her lover, Roger
> Mortimer, or the Bishop of Norwich, the Chancellor.
>
> Imprisoned, not executed Isabella. She lived a good long time. Only
> Henry VIII ever actually exectuted queens of England. (Unless you
> count Jane Grey, in the reign of his daughter.)
>
> Jean Coeur de Lapin
>
Yes, I have already posted an apology for my misinformation. My mistake.
Ev
Jeanne Cruden
Evelyn Barney (tige...@javanet.com) wrote:
: >
: > Yes, gay men can and do father children. What's the problem?
: None, I said myself that it was more than possible. However, having read
: the book Braveheart I was curious to know if their were any allegations
: that Isabellas children were not Edward's. Information like yours has
: answered my question
:
: 1) It is impossible that it was Wallace and 2) apparently there is no
: rumor it was anyone else other than Edward.
Actually...
although there's little chance that William Wallace ever could have
fathered a child by Isabella, it isn't really so out of the question that
Ed I wouldn't have been up for the job, after all, the three Edwards are
amazingly similar in appearance. I've heard that there actually is some
evidence pottering around for that.
Jeanne
: > Imprisoned, not executed Isabella. She lived a good long time. Only
: > Henry VIII ever actually exectuted queens of England. (Unless you
: > count Jane Grey, in the reign of his daughter.)
: >
: > Jean Coeur de Lapin
Pardon me for saying so, but I sincrely hope that is not your real name :)
--
"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~""~
1525: " As many as the Earl of Kildare caught of those who had a hand in
it were taken by him to the spot where this disasterous and evil plot was
consummated and he he caused them to be flayed alive first, and afterwards
their bowels taken out and burned together in his presence" Annals of
Connacht ... an example of perhaps what should be done to the Klein
government.
Jeanne Cruden, University of Alberta ( hopefully for not much longer),
Canada
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>> The answer is Yes. Edward II, as his son was later to become, was a
>> Homosexual. Regarding the defenestration, I think that was done purely
>> for dramatic effect in the film, it having no historical basis.
>
>First, it is clear that Edward II was not a homosexual.
>He had four children by his wife, Queen Isabelle,
If that were the extent of your argument I would suggest that you are
terribly naive.
>and at least one bastard son, probably conceived before his marriage.
This is somewhat more convincing but not overwhelming by any means.
>The most one could say is that Edward was bisexual.
There are reasons other than sexual attraction to have sex with the
opposite sex.
[references to other possibly more substantial arguments that he was
not gay deleted]
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
Charlie Anderson
John Yohalem wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 1997 16:43:40 GMT, "Evelyn Barney" <tige...@javanet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Also, Isabella had four children. Now I realize that they could WELL have
> >been young Edward's, sexual preference aside, but since both the movie and
> >book suggest at least the first was not, is their any evidence for that?
>
> Isabella had not left France and was a child of 12 when Wallace was
> executed. She did not marry Edward II until he had been crowned king.
> Princes of Wales rarely married before ascending the throne until
> modern times. (There have been only nine princesses of Wales since the
> title was created for Edward II.) Isabella's first child, the future
> Edward III, was not born until 1312 -- when Wallace had been dead
> seven years. There is no evidence or even rumor within centuries of
> the event that her children were fathered by anyone but her husband.
> Among Britain's other gay kings, Richard I left an illegitimate son,
> James I fathered eight children (three survived infancy) by his wife,
> and William III had several children (all born dead) by his wife, Mary
> II.
>
Lots of stuff snipped.
I know we've gone through all this before, but why not again. You're
jumping the gun with your matter of fact declaration that Richard I was
homosexual.
You're central point is valid -- gay men can and do father children.
Where you go wrong is lumping Richard I in to prove your point.
The ONLY contemporary evidence pointing to this 20th century fable is
a warning by a priest to Richard to beware the sins of Sodom etc. This,
coupled with his lack of an heir, has been seized on in post II world
war times to portray Richard as homosexual.
In fact, Sodom is a modern buzz word for homosexuality. Richard was a
bit of a lad by all accounts, and a warning from a priest to cool it was
probably par for the course, if I may mix my metaphors.
. Don't make the modern mistake of cobbling 20th century vocabulary and
cultural connetation (sp) onto 12th century words.
Read Gillingham's biography of Richard I for a much better analysis of
this whole point.
Charlie Anderson,.
Paul J. Gans
Evelyn Barney (tige...@javanet.com) wrote:
: I agree that the movie treatment of young Edward was unattractive, to say
: the least. BUT, that is not the author's fault. If you read the book, you
: will find that Edward is not so 'fay.' In fact, his sexuality is quite
: played down. This was a problem, I think with casting. And it may also
: have to do with Gibson's notions of sexuality. dunno.
: Also, Isabella had four children. Now I realize that they could WELL have
: been young Edward's, sexual preference aside, but since both the movie and
: book suggest at least the first was not, is their any evidence for that?
: Some historical facts: (as I understand them) Isabella gave the order to
: execute Edward II. He was executed in Berkley Tower after having been
: forced to turn his crown over to Edward III. Edward III in turn had his
: mother Isabella executed for treason against his father.
I don't know where to begin. Isabella never had a relationship
with Wallace, she was not only NOT in England at the time, she
was way too young.
I've never read nor heard any evidence that her children were
anything but legitimate. Don't take anything any movie (or
book derived from a movie) as evidence for ANYTHING.
It is doubtful that Isabella had Edward II executed. It is
much more likely that Mortimer (her lover) had it done.
Edward III did not have his mother killed. She was "confined"
to a castle, lived luxuriously, had a certain freedom of
movement, and was visited by her son regularly.
Edward III did, in fact, have Mortimer executed.
Govind III Rashtrakut
In article <5fkej2$q...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
Jeanne Cruden <jcr...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>Actually...
>although there's little chance that William Wallace ever could have
>fathered a child by Isabella, it isn't really so out of the question that
>Ed I wouldn't have been up for the job, after all, the three Edwards are
>amazingly similar in appearance. I've heard that there actually is some
>evidence pottering around for that.
>
Edward I cannot be the father for the same reasons listed for Wallace. He
was dead. Edward I died in 1307 (BTW his second wife was Isabella's aunt
Marguerite). Isabella aged 12 did not marry Edward II (and that happened
after he became king) until 1308-09 (one of the two). Edward III was not
born until 1312. Since the techonology to freeze sperms did not exist
then, I would say it is highly unlikely............
Maybe Randall Wallce knows something about time travel we dont :-)
John Fiegel
Paul J. Gans wrote:
> I don't know where to begin. Isabella never had a relationship
> with Wallace, she was not only NOT in England at the time, she
> was way too young.
Wallace was executed in 1305, Edward II became king in 1307 and I think
was married to Isabella that same year or 1308. She was 15 or so at the
time. Edward III was born in 1312.
> I've never read nor heard any evidence that her children were
> anything but legitimate.
I have read suggestions that the some of the later ones might have
been. Maybe. Could have. Rumors, and Isabella was not liked by the
English.
I found the movie's historical inaccuracies appalling. Especially since
the truth, or something close, would have been a good story on its own.
hell...@cc.weber.edu
In article <01bc28ac$8cbfd780$2d352299@default<, <Dan...@msn.com< writes...<<01bc1eb1$b3e97f00$LocalHost@home<...
<<
<< The answer is Yes. Edward II, as his son was later to become, was a
<< Homosexual. Regarding the defenestration, I think that was done purely
<for
<< dramatic effect in the film, it having no historical basis.
<
<First, it is clear that Edward II was not a homosexual. He had four
<probably conceived before his marriage. The most one could say is that
<Edward was bisexual.
<
<recent book on the life of Piers Gaveston by Pierre Chaplais concludes that
<the relationship between Edward and Piers was based on the medieval concept
<of brotherhood, not on sexual attraction.
<
<True, many historians have concluded that Edward II did have a sexual
<relationship with Piers Gaveston (and perhaps with others as well, but
<other interpretations are possible, as Prof. Chaplais shows.
<
<Dana Sample
and piers gaveston had children of his own, don't forget.
HME (in utah)